Case law

Sturdivant v. Fine

22 F.4th 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 7, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for violating statutory or constitutional rights that are not clearly established. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Sch., 321 F.3d 1285, 1288–89 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a teacher was not entitled to qualified immunity from a student’s claim of sexual harassment because the right had been clearly established in employment

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 3, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources v. Kaufman

203 W. Va. 56 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1998

from suit based upon (1) statutory immunity; (2) quasi-judicial immunity; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty … ; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty doctrine.

Jerome Yates, Jameela Yates v. City of Cleveland, Sanford L. Currie, Officer

941 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear

Noyes v. Moccia, et al.

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 24, 1999

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … would violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights.

Monica Lee, Individually and On Behalf of The Estate of Damien Cameron, and All of the Heirs at Law and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Damien Cameron v. Rankin County, Mississippi, Hunter Thomas Elward and Luke Aaron Stickman

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · May 5, 2026

Qualified Immunity ¶25. … Thus, plaintiffs bear the burden to rebut a defense of qualified immunity “by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” Harris v. Miss.

Mata v. Anderson

760 F. Supp. 2d 1068 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 24, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Moreover, he does not enjoy qualified immunity, because retaliatory prosecution has been clearly established as a constitutional violation, and the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, if taken as true, establish such

State Ex Rel. Wilhoit v. Seay

248 S.W.3d 135 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2008

Again, both Jones and Walker are public officials entitled to qualified immunity unless their immunity was lost through conduct violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person … Wood, therefore, has failed to allege facts that adequately prove that Jones and Walker lost their qualified immunity by violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

BROWN v. ROBINETT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 19, 2021

"Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Fleming v. … Clearly, an entitlement to qualified immunity cannot be established by the mere incantation of magic words, purportedly buttressed by endless pages of quotes relating to the doctrine. Arguably, Ms.

David Roberts v. City of Omaha

723 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013

There is no clearly established law indicating Roberts’s suggested rights applied in the circumstances of this case. The district court should have granted the officers qualified immunity on these claims. … City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 482 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining under “qualified immunity, a county employee may be held personally liable for a constitutional violation only if his own conduct violated a clearly established

Mabry ex rel. T.M. v. Lee County

100 F. Supp. 3d 568 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 30, 2015

In order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Officer Fant is accordingly entitled to qualified immunity.

Fenstermaker v. City of Dayton, Ohio

712 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 1988

, but also [in order to find a claim of qualified immunity to be well taken] that it was not clearly established that the circumstances under which the official or officer was confronted at the time of the challenged action … Qualified immunity protects the individual police officers from liability under federal law for their official actions, if said actions do not violate clearly established legal, statutory or constitutional rights.

Bedinghaus v. Modern Graphic Arts

15 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

Clearly, “the company” refers to the Times and its affiliates, not to some entity that happens to purchase the assets of one of the affiliates. We see no ambiguity in the crucial terms. … As the First Circuit said in Bellino: Federal courts have established no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA.

Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley

70 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 1995

While the right to due process is “clearly established” by the Due Process Clause, this level of generality was not intended to satisfy the qualified immunity standard. … that the law was clearly established, Doody was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed breaching the dam was lawful.”

Patsy Talley v. Dale Folwell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

established, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

Shedlock v. Department of Correction

442 Mass. 844 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 8, 2004

Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). … However, the issue whether a statutory right is “clearly established” for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity is not a matter of counting up the number of decisions that have gone each way and treating as “clearly established

Maras v. City of Brainerd

502 N.W.2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

Qualified Immunity Appellants claim that, even if the trustee’s claims are actionable under section 1983, Pfingsten is entitled to qualified immunity against those claims. … The threshold question is whether Peterson had a clearly established right which Pfingsten violated. We conclude that he did.

Colston v. Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ. (In re Hugine)

256 So. 3d 30 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 17, 2017

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson [v. Creighton , 483 U.S. 635 ,] 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 [ (1987) ]." Pearson v. … "Because pre-existing law did not provide fair warning to Appellees that demoting Rioux under these circumstances would violate clearly established federal law, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity."

Rainey v. Hartness

339 Ark. 293 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 1999

Qualified Immunity — Federal Law Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … Courts evaluating a claim of immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Carney v. Miller

Nebraska Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2014

Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) in their individual capacity, so long as an official’s conduct does not vio- late clearly established … Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 12.